Case law

In re Mott

539 F.2d 1291 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 12, 1976

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection of claims 39, 42, 44, 46, 50, and 57 of appellant’s application serial No. 256,194, filed May 23, … See Hemstreet v. Rohland, 433 F.2d 1403 , 58 CCPA 743 (1970). This broad construction, of course, is to appellant’s benefit. .

United States v. Hirsch Co.

13 Ct. Cust. 181 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1925

The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers in this case is based entirely upon the reasoning used in the opinion filed and the conclusion reached by this court in American Bead Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. … Appls. 18, and United States v. Mandel, 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 44 . Decided concurrently herewith are United States v. Doragon Co. et al., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 182 , T. D. 41051, and United States v.

United States v. Baxter

16 Ct. Cust. 257 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 11, 1928

American Bead Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 18 , T. D. 36259; United States v. Flory & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 156 ,T. D. 42219. … See United States v. Biggs, 203 U. S. 136 ; United States v. American Shipping Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 346 , T. D. 41254.

Brody v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1911

The baskets were classified and assessed by the collector under paragraph 212, and his action was sustained by the Board of General Appraisers. … A more exhaustive discussion of the controlling principles of this case may be found in Krauss v. United States (T. D. 31574), heard at our February (1911) session, in which we reach a like conclusion.

Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 1 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1916

The first was Tilge & Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 97 ; T. … Such articles are, in our opinion, finished manufactures, and the board was correct in so finding. The case of Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States ( 171 U. S., 210 ) was cited in support of this ruling.

Boileau v. Godfrey

138 F.2d 67 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1943

Brogden et al. v. Henry, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1043, 69 F. (2d) 978, 21 USPQ 279 . … For the reasons heretofore stated the decision of the board will be-affirmed.

Huelster v. Reiter

168 F.2d 542 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1948

However, in the case of Heddon v. Cowdery et al., 26 C. C. P. A. … Counsel for appellant rely on the case of Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co. v.

Sealed Air Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission

645 F.2d 976 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1981

The ITC’s investigative authority The ITC, like any other administrative agency or board, is entirely the creature of statute. Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 367 U.S. 316 (1961); Soriano v. … As Chief Justice Warren said in Civil Aeronautics Board, supra, at 322, “[T]he determinative question is not what the Board thinks it should do, but what Congress has said it can do.”

Altman & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 296 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

The board overruled the protest on the authority of United States v. Flory ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 87 ; T. D. 33367). … The decision of the board is reversed.

In Re Wellman

48 F.2d 926 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1931

The court further quoted, with approval from James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356 , 26 L. … Other authorities to the same effect as Steinmetz v. Allen, supra, are Mosler Safe & Lock Co., v. Mosler, B. & Co., 127 U. S. 354, 361 , 8 S. Ct. 1148 , 32 L. Ed. 182 ; In re Hawkins, 57 App. D.

United States v. Tattersfield Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 492 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1923

Crimmins & Pierce et al. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 137 ; T. D. 35392.) Bloomingdale Bros. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 104 -107; T. D. 37221.) … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In Re Dixon

44 F.2d 881 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

The law is well settled by Hotel Security, etc., v. Lorraine Co., 160 Fed. 467 ; Berardini v. Tocci, 200 Fed. 1021 ; Moore v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 120 ; In re Moeser, 27 App. D. C. 307. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Lang v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1918

United States v. Simon & Co. et al. ( 139 Fed., 3 ). … United States v. J. R. Simon & Co. ( 169 Fed., 106 ).

United States v. Anderson & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

In sustaining the protest, as appears from its decision, the board held that the reasoning of this court in the case of Prosser v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 550 ; T. D. 31551) was controlling. … In United States v. Meadows ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 143 ; T.

Application of Jerome G. Kuderna, Jr. And Donald D. Phillips

426 F.2d 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1970

Here, for example, if one singles out the Lemin patent and the compound therein found to be most structurally similar to that of appellants, the examiner and board's position seems plausible. … As support for this proposition appellants refer to the following statement from Deutsche Gold-Und Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler v.

Application of Headley Townsend Backhouse

220 F.2d 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1955

Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U.S. 1 , 5 S.Ct. 1042 , 29 L.Ed. 76 . … Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U.S. 112 , 26 L.Ed. 93 ; In re Cady, 111 F.2d 899 , 27 C.C. P.A., Patents, 1208.

In re Campbell

48 F.2d 915 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1931

Crouch v. Roemer, 103 U. S. 797 ; Parson Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 185 Fed. 522 ; Turner v. Lanter Piano Co., 248 Fed. 933 . There are three affidavits found in the record pertaining to commercial success of appellants device. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Glass

492 F.2d 1228 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1974

The right of the Patent Office to rely on prior United States patents as “prior art” under § 102(e) is pursuant to the rationale of the case of Alexander Milburn Co. v. … The board was right in refusing to consider the patents cited by appellant and we, likewise, refuse to consider them.

Spencer Importing & Trading Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 444 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

This protest was heard by the Board of General Appraisers upon testimony which included also the record-in the case of Henry Heide v. The United States, now pending in this court upon appeal. … That court at a time subsequent to the enactment of the present law held against the Government and reversed the decision of *450 the board. Heide v. United States (175 Fed. Rep., 316).

United States v. Stern

5 Ct. Cust. 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1914

In Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. … Shaw v. United States ( 122 Fed., 443 ).